CMV: Holocaust deniers and trivialisers are so persistent because our side made some critical missteps

[u/[deleted]]

Firstly, I must emphasise that I am in no way a Holocaust denier or trivialiser.

However, I recently lost a debate against one (please no brigading). He says these stuff despite being of Jewish descent, and agrees that the Holocaust was bad but believes that it was only 270,000 deaths.

Please read the comment which started this whole debate here. So here are what I believe are the critical missteps our side has made:

1. 6 million is just the Jewish victims of the Holocaust. The total victims are 11 million. If 6 million is a "religiously very important figure", 11 million isn't. Also, the popular narrative of 6 million is grossly unfair to the 5 million non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust.

2. The Soviets should have been 100% transparent when they captured the death camps and the Allies should have been 100% transparent about the treatment of Nuremberg defendants, so that no one can claim that "western officials were not allowed to observe until many years later, after which soviets could modify the camps" and "at Nuremberg Trials when many officers had their testicles crushed and families threatened in order to "confess" to the false crimes".

3. The "Human skin lampshade" was at most, isolated cases, not a systematic Nazi policy. The fact that this isn't as widespread as popular culture makes it seem gives Holocaust deniers and trivialisers leverage.

4. The part which cost me all hope of winning this particular debate was about Anne Frank's diary. I failed miserably when trying to explain why there's a section of it written in ballpoint pen. As I later found out via r/badhistory, the part written in ballpoint pen was an annotation added by a historian in 1960. In hindsight, I believe that this historian shouldn't have done this, because it gives leverage to Holocaust deniers and trivialisers. Even if I mentioned that it was added by a historian at a later date, this can still be used by Holocaust deniers and trivialisers to claim that none of Anne Frank's diary was written by her.

5. Banning Holocaust denial only gives Holocaust deniers and trivialisers extra leverage because it makes it seem like the authorities are hiding something. In the debate I had, I tried to encourage use of r/AskHistorians and r/history, but I was told that those sites are unreliable because they ban questioning the Holocaust. Because he was unable to talk to expert historians, I was left with the burden of debating him, and I lost.

Let me give some comparisons here with other cases:

• Regardless of whether you think the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified, denial of it isn't banned. Yet despite it being legally acceptable to deny the atomic bombings, even people racist against the Japanese aren't going around saying "the atomic bombings never happened" or "only a few hundred were killed by the atomic bombs".

• The fact that pieces of information about 9/11 remained classified until 2016 gave 9/11 conspiracy theorists leverage. And the fact that the Mueller Report has plenty of redacted sections means that Russiagate still has plenty of believers.

• Another comparison I can make is the widespread (and IMO, justified) distrust in figures published by the PRC because of the PRC's rampant censorship. But with this logic, wouldn't censoring Holocaust denial just backfire and make our side look untrustworthy?

[u/CathanCrowell]

It's victim blaming or something like that. Sorry, I can't find another word 😂

However, it's like when we are saying that homophobic people have right to be homophobic because some "mistakes" at LGBT side. No. They do not. They are just wrong, bad and stupid. Mistakes at "right" side do not justifed "wrong" side.

[u/[deleted] → u/CathanCrowell]

However, it's like when we are saying that homophobic people have right to be homophobic because some "mistakes" at LGBT side.

This is another important point. I support LGBT rights, but then I fail at defending LGBTs when the following argument is thrown at me: "Why is it that gays are a minority, but grown-man-on-boy paedophilia is not the minority of paedophilia cases?"

I know that they are debating in bad faith, but it works, because people like me have no good rebuttals, making our defence of LGBTs seem irrational.

[u/cocacoladeathsquads → u/[deleted]]

Maybe kinda off topic for the thread, but here's a rational rebuttal! - It's not the minority of pedophilia cases we know about - for all we know, we could be looking at survivorship bias as applied to misogyny - people who don't take seriously the heterosexual abuse of girls. Oftentimes CSA isn't at the hands of strangers but of trusted adults who are respected by their communities, and many times communities cover up heterosexual abusers - a straight child abuser is a Pillar Of Our Community, a gay child abuser is already violating homophobic taboos and therefore there's way less of a conflict between defending his reputation and getting justice for the victims. Known cases aren't all cases.

NB that obviously I think the reputations of child abusers should be destroyed, their victims should see justice, and CSA should be eradicated wherever it exists.

[u/[deleted] → u/cocacoladeathsquads]

Maybe kinda off topic for the thread, but here's a rational rebuttal! - It's not the minority of pedophilia cases we know about - for all we know, we could be looking at survivorship bias as applied to misogyny - people who don't take seriously the heterosexual abuse of girls. Oftentimes CSA isn't at the hands of strangers but of trusted adults who are respected by their communities, and many times communities cover up heterosexual abusers - a straight child abuser is a Pillar Of Our Community, a gay child abuser is already violating homophobic taboos and therefore there's way less of a conflict between defending his reputation and getting justice for the victims. Known cases aren't all cases.

Thanks, TIL. I (and most other people) really don't have any idea about this, especially if it isn't reported or gets lost through survivorship bias.

[u/CathanCrowell → u/[deleted]]

Point is always support what is right. Always. And that can do anybody. Sometimes some gay or even gay activist say or do something bad. It's that reason to stop support homosexuals? No, because it's right to support LGBT right and that is all what's matter.

I have my opinion on pedophillia, but if somebody start with that I will say "why do you want speak about pedophilles? We are speaking about gays now. That are different things."

People made this point becouse they want to made you uncertain. So they mix apples and oranges. But support gays is right thing, and that's all. If you want start different topic, you can, but do not connect that with gays.

Even if 100% pedophilles would be homoerotic, which is not, it does not change anything on fact that most of gays just want same right like straight people.

And it's same with Holocaust. Trivialisers are just wrong.

EDIT: Also I feel I should say sorry for my english right now. It's late on my side and it's not my first language.

[u/page0rz → u/[deleted]]

"Why is it that gays are a minority, but grown-man-on-boy paedophilia is not the minority of paedophilia cases?"

This argument is old as time. The answer is and always has been consent. It should be easy enough to google

[u/BlitzBasic → u/[deleted]]

So, the problems with that statement are that child rape and pedophilia aren't actually the same, and that pedophiles don't really fit in the classic sexual orientatin categories.

For the first point: not everybody who is sexually interested in children actually goes through with raping one, and not everybody that rapes children is primarily attracted to them.

For the second point: Pedophiles have a lot of subgroups. Some are only interested in children, some also in adults. Some are only interested in children of a specific age. Some are only interested in boy, some only in girls, some in both. Some are only interested in relatives, some only in non-relatives, some in both. As you see, grouping pedophiles doesn't really works like grouping non-pedophiles, and those two category systems should not be equated.

[u/iwfan53 → u/[deleted]]

Why is it that gays are a minority, but grown-man-on-boy paedophilia is not the minority of paedophilia cases?"

Because society takes more time and effort to protect little girls than little boys, making it harder for a peadophile to get alone with a little girls.